click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
MSNBC 18
MSNBCW 17
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
will oppose hagel no matter what. >> i believe he's the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. >> tea party senator ted cruz tried to gin up an old conservative bogeyman. >> i'd like to draw your attention to an interview you did in 2009 with al jazeera. >> but here's the real reason. these guys don't want chuck hagel in the defense department. this is the bomb bomb iran crowd. you see, mccain and graham have led the charge for possible war against the iranians as well as syria. chuck hagel sees war as an absolute last resored. it that's why president obama picked him. the two share similar views in philosophy as the obama administration attempts to define the role of the united states in the transition to a post-superpower world. their philosophy is this. the united states must get out of these massive land wars, iraq and afghanistan, and if possible avoid future large-scale war. despite all of the posturing and starcraft, hagel's nomination, well, is not in jeopardy. not one senator who previously voiced support for hagel has changed his or her mind. i
by march 1st, the pentagon will be hit by a series of cuts worth $500 billion, $700 billion would be cut from other domestic discretionary programs. president obama is warning that that has to stop. >> washington cannot continually operate under a cloud of crisis. that freezes up consumers, it gets businesses worried. we can't afford these self-inflicted wounds. >> work under a cloud of crisis. joining me now, msnbc policy analyst and "washington post" reporter, ezra klein. good to have you here. before i get to the potential impact of sequestration, do you think it's really going to happen or is congress going to reach a deal to stop these cuts? i point out the countdown is on with only so many days to go. >> i think it might happen. they don't seem to have a good way to stop the cuts. i should just say i think it's $500 and $500 billion on domestic and pentagon side. either way, there's not been really anything even near a deal to deal with sequestration, partially because of how it actually got constructed in the first place. initially, the idea behind the sequestration was it was the
or not to admit gays to the rankings. >>> on the heels of the boy scouts decision, the pentagon is announcing a policy shift for guy service members and partners. leon panetta expected to extend benefits to partners of personnel. it remains doubtful that medical, down theal and housing allowances are offered under the new proposal. an extension of those benefits require the repeal of the 1996 defense of marriage act. >>> here's a first look this morning at your morning dish of scrambled politics. >>> the president should be used to cameras snapping away at him in the white house. but he read a statement about the economic plan he reacted to the distraction. >> what's up, cameraman? come on, guys. they're breaking my flow all the time. >> the white house released a photo yesterday of the president working with aides on a speech. coincidentally, the chief speechwriter seen on the right is leaving the white house. he's going to be taking his writing skills to hollywood. >>> a new action figure of president obama is on sale showing him with a shotgun. perfect for skeet shooting. >>> dick morris l
level that he had been waterboarded. he had practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. but when he referred to containment on iran rather than prevention of nuclear weapons and had to be corrected and then corrected again, a note was passed to him, and then the chairman helpfully said to him, containment is not a policy at all. that is not our policy. that is such a critical mistake on an issue that he knew that he was going to be asked about. we knew that he was going to have to explain the, quote, jewish lobby and take that back and some of the other things. the way he did it didn't seem crisp. and then when ted cruz wheeled in the tv screen to play an al jazeera talk show and put him on the spot or how he defended israel or didn't defend israel in response to a question on a talk show, it would be like somebody saying to you or mika, joe, you were on c-span ten years ago, and what did you say to someone who called in? that was very, very tough. >> that was sort of my point at the top. >> it's interesting that you had said, mika, yesterday as we were going to a meeti
. >> you heard chuck haegle say, that he saw that film. two days after that, he changed the pentagon policy and announced that rape allegations would be moved out of the direct line of command that has been so successful of suppressing these allegations and each branch of the military will have a special unit for these allegations. this is something that the secretary of defense has the power to do on his own authority. but most senators have no interest in that. in this rape crisis in the american military and they wasted their time today talking about policy questions that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense. joining me now alex wagner and eugene robinson. >> alex, in our military today, women are actually putting their lives at risk simply bien listing. and we have to sit there today and watch the senators wander all over today about policies that have nothing to do with being secretary of defense when they have this crime crisis right in front of them. >> the reasons for that are two-fold. one is violence perpetrated against women have been ignored by the congress of rece
to overthrow the assad regime. the plan had received support from the pentagon, the cia, secretary clinton. but ultimately it was the white house that turned down the idea. >> both of you agreed with petraeus and clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in syria, is that correct? >> that was our position. i do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were reversed here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal. i supported his decision in the end. but the answer to your question is yes. >> for both of you? >> yes. >> "the wall street journal" says the white house was concerned about which rebels could be trusted with arms. was also worried about the risk of drawing the united states into another military conflict. but it was questions over benghazi that led to the most heated moments with secretary panetta and general dempsey defending the administration's response to the deadly raid on the u.s. consulate. >> for you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response, our posture was not there because w
, had any onpanetta strongly defended the pentagon's response to the benghazi attack that left ambassador chris stevens and three other americans dead. panetta told lawmakers there just wasn't enough time to get u.s. forces or attack aircraft to the scene. >>> today president obama will speak at a military farewell service for panetta. >>> michelle obama plans to travel to chicago to attend tomorrow's funeral for 15-year-old hidea pendleton, an honor student and band major ret who participated in the inauguration festivities about a week before her death. hidea was the victim of random gun violence last week, fatally shot about a mile from the obamas' chicago-area home. no arrests have been made. >>> the big story of the day, that potentially historic blizzard bearing down on the northeast. if weather channel meteorologist jim cantore shows up in your town, that's got to be bad news. jim is live in boston for us this morning. what's the latest there? >> just to let you know how bad i think this one's going to be, i brought a yardstick. there's only been one time i've ever broug
after appealing "don't ask, don't tell," the pentagon plans to extend some military benefits to same sex partners. exactly which has not been decided r decided, but they could include some health and welfare programs. >>> boy scouts of america announce a delay today. they will need more time to does whether or not to lift the ban on gay leader respect and scouts. the organization said it would take action at its national meeting in may.the organization take action at its national meeting in may. >>> and tulane university admitting to falsifying their reports. >>> gun control advocates had a lot of star power today on capitol hill. celebrities like tony bennett, chris rock and amanda pete all speaking up against the mars against illegal gun campaign. >> my sister practiced stern al medicine at an innercity hospital in north philadelphia. they see about 500 gunshot wound victims per year. that's one trauma center just in the neighborhood of north philly. and that doesn't take into account mortalities. despite these numbers, some people believe my sister should be prohibited from asking her
is going to the other side. that said when he is in the pentagon and controls the military in that capacity, they will have to deal with him and have the same interest in common. both parties want to keep the u.s. strong and safe and chuck hagel has been through worse. believe me, he has seen much more incoming than at that hearing. >> republican strategist, good to see you. thank you. >> good to see you. >> still ahead on the saturday afternoon, the latest on the scandal around the top u.s. senator. first, on this date, an announcement that led to the moment so many had been calling for. eventually to the end of apartheid. you are watching msnbc the place for politics. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady, who's that lady? [ female announcer ] swiffer 360 dusters extender cleans high and low, with thick all around fibers that attract and lock up to two times more dust than a feather duster. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning. and now swiffer dusters refills are available with the fresh scent of gain. i just served my moth
, practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. >> so jill, is it a surprise that hagel seemed unprepared, or is it a surprise that republicans were going at him so hard? >> none of this should have been a surprise, thomas. i mean, they knew that the republicans were not happy with them. and the democrats, i think it's too strong to say they support him. they're going to hold their nose, perhaps, and vote for him, because the president wants him. but no one is really for him. so all of these things were expected. and he should have been prepped and ready to answer every single one of these things. he should have been prepared for "i want yes or no." he should have been prepared for iran and containment. i mean, even his correction was incorrect. >> and chip, let me talk to you, because our nbc's first read has out that hostile gop questioning might have made democrats even more you wanted, or so the white house hopes and believes. and this is what perry was referring to earlier about roy blunt appearing on "the daily rundown" . take a look. >> a majority in the senate should be
's the complement of non -- of folks from the state department that we send? the relationship between the pentagon and the state department seems to have changed as well. how will he weigh in on that? >> yeah, those are good questions. i think if i could just take two examples. with syria and also with afghanistan, you have questions of where the united states has to figure out some next policy steps that are pretty big and get to the question you raise, the balance between troops possibly, between diplomatic advisers, development experts, cia operatives, and where policy in the case of afghanistan has to make some changes, but it's generally on a predetermined course but it's going to have to vary quite a bit because we're drawing down troops now. in syria i think what we have is a policy for all the good intentions hasn't really worked. and if i were secretary kerry, i would probably commission my best people to do a two to four-week study on fundamentally new options in syria. where i think the united states has to recognize that what it's been doing so far hasn't been adequate and yet the coun
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
400 drone strikes in pakistan, yemen, and monthlia, while the pentagon drone fleet has expanded from 50 to 7,500. for the past decade american drone policy has existed largely in the shadows. its legal just ficks and moral underpinnings largely relegated to debate among progress severe media outlets and concerned libertarians. now as john brennan, the architect of the u.s. drone policy and president obama's mick to head the cia readies to testify this afternoon on capitol hill, calls for greater transparency and legal justification for the killings have increased. the outcry reached a crescendo on monday when nbc's michael isikoff obtained a leaked white pair from the government suggesting that the u.s. government can kill american set zenz overseas without any specific intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the u.s. the expansive legal framework set off alarm bells. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. i don't think that as one person said, that is too much to ask. >> the "new york times" wrot
the pentagon, his answer was simple. no. but i kept asking. i am persistent. that's how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to leon's patriotism, to his sense of duty that he agreed to serve on this one last tour. and perhaps it was the memory during world war ii of his parents opening up their homes to gis headed for the pacific. perhaps it was because leon served himself as a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deploy to afghanistan. what we do know is this, as our nation's 23rd secretary of defense, every action leon panetta has taken, every decision that he has made, has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. and just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq and are winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we've put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat, and we've been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)